Weights and methods of assessment on vocational courses

Amanda Fancourt, UK Centre for Legal Education

Presentation at Vocational Teachers Forum II, 1 July 2002

Amanda’s session at the second Vocational Teachers Forum provided background information on the assessment regimes of the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and the Bar Vocational Course (BVC).

Students on the Legal Practice Course (LPC) tend to be assessment-driven, creating a tension with the ‘preparation for practice’ nature of the course. Until now, the assessment burden on the LPC has been 18, however from September 2002 it will be 14, as courseworks are being dropped. The Law Society’s LPC working group identified a variety of reasons for the reduction. For example:

• students tend to see the course in terms of a series of assessment ‘hurdles’ rather than as a learning experience
• students are denied opportunities for reflective learning, because of the relentless demands of assessment

The reduction may reduce the drafting and marking burden for teaching staff. In addition, the new assessment regulations allow for flexibility in the type or style of assessment (a minimum of three hours per subject, and no maximum). However, there may now be an increased need for formative assessment. Students may well demand more ‘mocks’, as they will have only one assessment point per substantive subject.

So, will the reduction really make a difference? In what way is less more?

Number of assessments

Legal Practice Course current and proposed assessment regimes
(based on data in the report of the Law Society LPC working group on assessment burden)

subject	current		proposed
	number	weighting	number	weighting
Compulsories (50% = pass)	7 in total	50%	3	50%
Business Law and Practice (BLP)	3 (2 courseworks and 1 exam)	-	1	-
Conveyancing	2 (1 coursework and 1 exam)	-	1	-
Litigation	2 (1 coursework and 1 exam)	-	1	-
Electives (3 subjects)	3 exams	50%	3 exams	50%
Skills (assessed on competent/non-competent basis):
Research	2	-	2	-
Writing	1	-	1	-
Drafting	1	-	1	-
Advocacy	1 (oral)	-	1	-
Interviewing	1 (oral)	-	1	-
Accounts (assessed on competent/non-competent basis)	2	-	2	-
Total	18	100%	14	100%

In addition to the assessments shown above, ‘pervasive’ subjects (Professional Conduct and Financial Services) are also assessed on a competent/non-competent basis, generally within the context of the compulsory subjects.

Bar Vocational Course assessment regime

subject	assessment	weighting ()	of total marks
Criminal and Civil Litigation, Evidence and Sentencing (knowledge areas)	2 written (unseen)	2 × 10	20
Advocacy	2 oral	2 × 10	20
Conference Skills	1 oral	10	10
Negotiation	1 oral	10	10
Opinion Writing	2 written	2 × 7.5	15
Drafting	2 written	2 × 7.5	15
Options	2 written or oral	2 × 5	10
Legal Research	2 practical exercises	assessed on a competent/non-competent basis
Professional Ethics	pervasive components
total	14	100	100

Methods of assessment

On the LPC, assessments currently take a number of forms. Some courseworks are sat under controlled or supervised conditions (‘unseen’), while with others the students have a couple of weeks to complete the work (‘seen’). Most examinations are open book, but a small number of providers restrict materials taken into exams to (for example) statutes.

The first assessment is usually in about October, and the last in June/July. Marks are allocated to the assessments in the compulsory and elective subjects, while skills are assessed on a competent/non-competent basis.

On the Bar Vocational Course (BVC), students take examinations in the knowledge areas and have a series of oral and written assessments, both seen and unseen, in the skills areas. Unlike the LPC, the knowledge areas and most skills on the BVC carry a proportion of the total marks.

Over-assessment

Students face about 14 summative assessments on the BVC and currently 18 on the LPC. (On the latter course, there may be fewer at some providers where, for example, a skill such as drafting is combined with a compulsory subject.) The overall burden means that students face on average one assessment every fortnight, if not more often, taking vacations into account. This is heavy, not only for students, but also of course for staff, in terms of drafting, marking and feedback. Further, in addition to these summative assessments, most providers offer formative or ‘mock’ assessments of one form or another.

The issue of over-assessment was the main reason for the recent changes made to the LPC regime by the Law Society in May 2002. Its working group on assessment burden acknowledged that the burden was excessive, and identified in its report a number of problems caused by this.

For example:

• student motivation revolves around assessments rather than the learning outcomes of the course
• students tend to see the course as a series of assessment ‘hurdles’ rather than as a learning experience
• assessment burdens impact on student attendance at teaching sessions
• the assessment burden imposes a very substantial workload on staff as well

In a step towards addressing these issues, the LPC burden is to be reduced to 14 from September 2002, excluding formative assessments. Written courseworks in the compulsory subjects have been abolished, and there remains one assessment point for each of those subjects. That assessment can be an examination or other form of supervised assessment, and must last for a minimum of three hours. The flexibility available in length and form of these assessments is to encourage innovation and creativity.

The burden is reduced – or is it?

Certainly at first glance it appears that the burden will be reduced for students and staff alike. However, given that LPC students will now have only one summative assessment per compulsory subject (ie the three subjects taught over two terms), there will be an increased demand for formative assessments. It is likely that the students will expect these to be marked, or to receive some form of detailed feedback from tutors.

With the already heavy load on staff, providers may have to take a hard line on the form of formative assessments and feedback to avoid an increase in staff workload. Such assessments could be made optional, with the students self-marking, but the question is how much do students actually get out of this process, especially if there is no or very limited tutor feedback? In addition, many students may not bother to do the assessment, knowing they will be getting the answers anyway. Should we rather replicate the final assessment by requiring the students to sit the mock under supervised conditions?

By way of example of formative assessments, at the Oxford Institute of Legal Practice tutors in at least two of the compulsory subjects plan to give the students mini-exam or assessment style questions at the end of each module. Some form of practice paper is also given shortly before the final assessment. However, these mini-assessments risk increasing teaching hours, as small group feedback is envisaged after each mock.

New form assessments: compulsory subjects

The new assessment regime sets a minimum time (three hours) for the subject assessments, but no maximum. This is designed to encourage innovation. A concern expressed at the Law Society Providers’ Day for Business Law and Practice was that it would be very difficult to cover adequately such a huge subject in one assessment. It could of course be longer than three hours, but this raises, amongst others, issues for special needs students.

Further, the LPC chief examiners have commented that assessments should be more realistic and replicate particularly the tasks a student will have to do in the early stages of the training contract.

The overall learning experience

If students have fewer assessments to worry about, then theoretically they can concentrate more on the course, and appreciate more fully the fact that the course is preparing them for practice. That is the theory at least. Will it happen in practice? This is debatable. There will still be 14 assessment points, and a range of ‘mocks’.

Further, it is extremely difficult to persuade the majority of students to appreciate the overall value of the course to their preparation for practice when, if they do not pass, they will not get into practice anyway.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010